I’m beginning to wonder if one day we’re going to look back on this year’s BCS title game, aka The Rematch, as sort of college football’s Bush v. Gore equivalent. Check out this comment from Andy Staples:

This season’s Alabama-LSU national title game was the tipping point for the anti-playoff crowd. Several leagues were already leaning in the direction of a four-team playoff — strategically called a “plus-one” so dim bulbs won’t realize it’s actually a playoff — but when voters passed over Oklahoma State for an all-SEC rematch, the momentum finally swung in the direction of a bracketed tournament, even if it is a small one… [Emphasis added.]

If there is some form of SEC backlash involved in the playoff movement – and I’m not saying Staples is wrong to suggest there is – boy, are some people going to be disappointed when the SEC puts three schools in a plus-one tourney. (Unless, of course, they limit the number of schools one conference can place in a plus-one, which would speak volumes about Andy’s point.)

… For the sake of argument, let’s say Alabama beats LSU in another generally competitive game, by a margin of anywhere from one point to two touchdowns. In that case, the Crimson Tide will finish the year 12-1 with two or three wins over teams ranked in the final polls (give or take Penn State). LSU will finish 13-1 with four or five wins over teams ranked in the final polls (give or take West Virginia). They’d be be 1-1 against one another, with LSU’s win coming at Alabama. LSU will still be the SEC champion.

Under the circumstances, that’s a formula for a split championship, at worst. (The Coaches’ Poll is contractually obligated to vote the winner of the BCS title game No. 1; as LSU fans are well aware, the Associated Press poll is not.) That wouldn’t be the case if the rematch came as a result of the Tigers and Tide eliminating the competition head-to-head, on the field, leaving no questions and no alternatives. If there happens to be a rematch at the end of a playoff, it’s between two teams who have decisively earned it in a way that Alabama, in the current system, has not. [Emphasis added.]

Don’t you just love that? It’s not the rematch that’s bad; it’s the system which delivered it that’s bad. Nifty bit of circular reasoning there.

Of course the real problem this season isn’t that there’s a rematch in the title game. As Matt backhandedly acknowledges, the real problem is that there’s a debate over which team is the second best.

… That’s not to suggest that Oklahoma State or anyone else has earned a stronger claim on a second chance, either. But as long as that opportunity exists for some teams at the expense of others, the current system belongs in the scrapheap.

And because we can’t decide that issue (and because, let’s not forget, the schools want that TV/BCS money), the solution is to make the clear number one team in the country play more games so that we can all feel better about which school is the runner-up. We’re supposed to take an illogical situation and make it even more illogical.

You can see the slippery slope coming a mile away once this rationale is sanctioned, can’t you? This time it’s about #2 vs. #3. With the plus-one, the next debate will come when the argument is over which team is the nation’s fourth-best and the pressure will return to expand again to solve that debate (even if, say, it comes in a season à la 2005, when there was a clear consensus on the top two teams in the country). In other words, a playoff won’t solve this particular concern any better than what we’ve got now.

My point here isn’t to argue against a plus-one format (even though I expect most to question me on that). I’m okay with one that’s constructed with an eye towards being resistant to further expansion. There’s a convincing case to be made that there should be a better way to deal with the way the 2003 and 2004 seasons played out. But those were situations where the debate centered on more than two teams with a legitimate claim to being considered the best going into the postseason. Now we’re being urged to replace that standard with one that merely asks which teams deserve to show up in a postseason tourney, and that’s a very different animal.

Which means that if this season truly and finally provides the impetus for a D-1 playoff, either the movers and shakers embrace a new, flawed metric for inclusion, or (what I suspect) give it to us with a nudge and a wink that while it’s about what happened in 2011, the facts are unique and they promise with all their hearts that it will never, ever be a factor again. We can believe them, right?

Hey, if you can’t trust the folks who were pushing to expand the basketball tourney to 96 schools until they couldn’t find a broadcast partner willing to pay for the privilege, whom can you trust?

“We’re in a position right now that we’re probably going to turn down some great players that in the last 10 years Vanderbilt would have begged for these kids to come,” Franklin said. “We’re just in a position where we’re running out of scholarships and that’s the position you want to be in every single year that at the end you’ve still got enough options out there that are very, very attractive. And that’s the position we’re in right now.”

Who knew that playing the occasional horse’s ass after a couple of games would have such a big payoff?

Sigh. Derek Dooley is doing his damnedest to force me to come up with a new Lexicon entry. If you’re a kid with a family hardship who wants to leave Knoxville to be closer to home, you’re going to have to accept a few limitations.

“We’re not denying him a release to be near his family, get a good education and play Division I football at the same time, but we do have a policy of not releasing players to schools we either play or recruit against,” Stanton said Thursday. [Emphasis added.]

Well, Tennessee recruits nationally… does that come off as bad as it sounds for the player? Not according to Stanton.

“Where he’s from, there are several good D-I schools nearby that would be good options to play football, get a good education and keep him near his family.”

Funny how it turns out all those good D-I schools happen to be in the MAC.

I’m not sure if this qualifies as an expansion of the 8-hour drive rule SOD had previously set in the case of Aaron Douglas, or if it’s merely a refinement. Maybe it reflects the uniqueness of each situation in Dooley’s mind: in Douglas’ case, it was about getting him away from home, while Arnett seeks to get closer to home.

Or maybe SOD is just a prick on general principles because he can be.

And make no mistake about it, he can really jam Arnett up here even if the NCAA grants the kid hardship status.

… If Arnett qualifies for an NCAA hardship waiver, he would be able to play immediately at wherever he landed. Hang-ups with his National Letter of Intent, though, could put that in jeopardy.

Because Arnett signed a National Letter of Intent in February, he is subject to eligibility ramifications if he does not complete a full year at UT. It could, perhaps, be in his best interest to go through spring semester and spring football at UT before signing elsewhere.

“The basic penalty may preclude you from representing the second college until you have completed two academic years in residence at the latter institution and you may lose two seasons of competition in all sports,” according to a National Letter of Intent cheat sheet from the NCAA’s official website.

The situation has gotten pathetic enough for Arnett to post a picture of his ailing dad with tubes running out of his chest in an attempt to gain public sympathy. He’s also released a letter to the media. I doubt any of it will make a difference. Derek Dooley has a principle to maintain, which seems to be making players who no longer wish to be in his program grovel on their way out the door.

One thing you have to admire about the UT program – they never have required their coaches to win any PR battles up there.